Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court rules that testimony of a hostile witness cannot be rejected outright and must be evaluated for truthful portions. This judgment in Dadu @ Ankush v. State of Madhya Pradesh reinforces key principles of criminal jurisprudence and fair trial.
Introduction
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India clarified that the testimony of a hostile witness cannot be discarded entirely. Courts must examine such testimony carefully and accept the portions that appear truthful and reliable.
The Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih delivered this judgment while deciding an appeal against conviction under provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Case Title
Dadu @ Ankush & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Background of the Case
- The accused were charged with assault and outraging modesty.
- The prosecution alleged that the incident occurred at the victim’s residence.
- The trial court and the High Court upheld the conviction.
- A key witness (PW-4), related to the victim, provided a different version of events.
- He stated that the incident took place at a Ganesh Puja pandal, not at the victim’s home.
- Due to contradictions, the witness was declared hostile by the prosecution.
Key Legal Issue
- Can the testimony of a hostile witness be completely rejected?
Supreme Court’s Observation
- A hostile witness’s testimony cannot be rejected in totality.
- Courts must scrutinize the evidence carefully.
- Any portion of testimony that is consistent and credible can be accepted.
- Merely being declared hostile does not make the testimony unreliable.
“The evidence of a hostile witness is not to be totally rejected but must be evaluated carefully, and the truthful part can be relied upon.”
Reference to Precedent
The Court relied on the landmark judgment in State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra (1996), which established that hostile witness testimony remains admissible in law.
Court’s Analysis
- The High Court erred by rejecting PW-4’s testimony entirely.
- The witness remained consistent during cross-examination.
- The alternate version provided by the witness was plausible.
- Proper judicial analysis requires evaluation, not outright rejection.
Final Judgment
- The Supreme Court set aside the conviction.
- The accused were acquitted.
- The Court held that ignoring the hostile witness testimony led to a miscarriage of justice.
Legal Significance
- Strengthens the principle of fair trial.
- Clarifies evidentiary value of hostile witnesses.
- Prevents misuse of the “hostile” label to discard evidence.
- Ensures courts adopt a balanced and analytical approach.
Exam Relevance
- Law of Evidence
- Hostile Witness Concept
- Criminal Trial Procedure
- Important Supreme Court Judgments
Key Takeaways
- Hostile witness testimony is not automatically invalid.
- Courts must separate truth from inconsistency.
- Judicial evaluation is essential for fair justice delivery.
- This judgment reinforces due process in criminal law.
Also Read
Supreme Court Clarifies: Dying Declaration Valid Even If Death Is Not Imminent
